Re: git-merge-subordinate
- From
Johannes Schindelin <johannes.schindelin@gmx.de>
- Date
- Oct 25, 2006, 16:19 UTC
- Message-ID
- <Pine.LNX.4.63.0610251819080.3286@wbgn013.biozentrum.uni-wuerzburg.de>
- In-Reply-To
- <eho29l$1td$1@sea.gmane.org>
Hi,
On Wed, 25 Oct 2006, Jakub Narebski wrote:
Show 11 quoted lines
> Matthew Wilcox wrote: > > > Linus doesn't like seeing unnecessary merges in his tree. I'm not a huge > > fan of them either. Wouldn't it be nice if we had a merge method that > > did a merge without creating a merge? I call it git-merge-subordinate > > (since my tree is subordinate to the tree I'm pulling from). I suppose > > you could call it 'slave' if you want to be more pithy. Anyway, this > > is a first attempt, and it's totally cargo-cult programming; I make no > > claim that I understand what I'm doing. But it does seem to work. > > Hmmm... the --squash option to git-merge/git-pull isn't enough?
What subordinate does is not _merge_, but _rebase_ on top of the fetched commit. So yes, --squash isn't enough ;-)
Ciao, Dscho